Green Options

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

The effort to help change the world’s polluting ways is a long road that was never going to be solved overnight. However, with the help of LiveScience.com, maybe we can effectively destroy any hope of it overnight.

I call this story “How to Successfully Undermine Good Ideas” thanks to a recent article written over at LiveScience.com entitled “Top 10 Craziest Environmental Ideas.” And, in short, several of their “zany ideas” are possible chances for survival.

When you think of Americans who have done a lot for Climate Change, current president George W. Bush doesn’t spring to mind. The guy he beat for the current spot, Al Gore, definitely springs to mind; I like to think of GBW as the anti-Gore.

Over the past week rumors and rumblings about a climate plan underway in the current and fading Whitehouse have emerged. Thankfully, it all seems a bit “disappointing.”

Seventeen nations have come together in Paris for two days in the latest round of climate warming talks, under the heading of the Major Emitters Meeting. The South African delegation was the one to label Bush’s proposals – to halt a rise in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 – as disappointing. “There is no way whatever that we can agree to what the U.S. is proposing,” South African Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said in a statement.

Every now and again I like to return to a topic I’ve already touched on before (please don’t ask me to find where I did, the archives confuse me). So when my news feeds pointed me towards this new research, I couldn’t help but head back to another ‘no-brainer’ for you all.

To be published online in the open access journal Carbon Balance and Management, new research shows that, while planting trees alone may not be the only solution to solving our climate problems, planting new forests or managing existing forests or agricultural land could help us in the long term.

How? By encouraging the land to work as the natural carbon sink it has been for so long. \

British Columbia will be the first in North America to institute a comprehensive carbon tax on nearly all fossil fuels. It’s a groundbreaking move that could prove the feasibility of taxing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Beginning July 1st, 2008, businesses and residents of British Columbia will be taxed $10 per metric ton of carbon emitted by fuels such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane, and home heating fuel. The tax will increase yearly by $5 per ton to $30 per ton in 2012, at which point the government will reevaluate the tax rate.

All participants to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme ought to have submitted crucial data on their 2007 greenhouse gas emissions levels by 31 March. The greenhouse gas data would be sourced by around 10,500 companies involved in carbon trading and is an important factor influencing the market price of traded carbon.

But many of the parties failed to meet the deadline, which is why the EU authorities in charge of the information said they will release the data to the public at a later date.

Emissions data is of vital importance for market traders because it shows the level of demand for the instruments they trade. The data is seen as a benchmark number setting the appropriate carbon price.

Companies involved in offsetting their carbon footprint have access to over twenty tools to calculate their emissions, most of which have been launched in the last year. So far, the voluntary carbon offsetting market is dominated by European players. Reviews of their efforts have not been all too positive, so US companies following in their footsteps do best to avoid the pitfalls.

The main criticism centers on what’s left out of the equation. Companies embarking on greening up their business practices are faced with a daunting task and most go about it the “easy way” at first. There’s the option to simply offset carbons on the Chicago Climate Exchange, the European Climate Exchange or on the newly established NYMEX venture, the Green Exchange. Businesses have access to these exchanges if they wish to reduce their overall greenhouse gas emissions by as little as 1%.

The Green Exchange was launched with bells and whistles a few months back. Last week the exchange traded for the first time and activity and volume it surpassed all expectations.

The Green Exchange is part of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). During its first week, the equivalent of 1.59 million tons of carbon was traded. That volume makes the Green Exchange “the most successful launch of exchange-traded carbon contracts,” according to a report in the SunHerald.

Following in the steps of the EU and their Emission Trading Scheme, Australia will be implementing a their own by 2010. Announced Monday by the Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, the national scheme would “constitute the most significant economic and structural reform undertaken in Australia since the trade liberalization of the 1980s.”

Often it is hard to understand just what a trading scheme is all about, but I finally found it explained simply and clearly. The AFP wrote; ‘Emissions trading schemes place a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution which companies can produce, forcing heavy polluters to buy credits from companies that pollute less — thereby creating financial incentives to fight global warming.’

This post is by Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Earth: The Sequel tells the story of an exciting race that is just beginning — the race to develop low-carbon energy in time to turn our greatest environmental crisis into our greatest economic opportunity.

Many people have expressed surprise that I’d write a book like this about a problem so serious. And global warming is serious. With each passing year, scientists get more and more alarmed at the increase and extent of disturbing impacts. But this book is not about the doom and gloom of global warming. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

Earth: The Sequel is about hope, invention, ingenuity, entrepreneurialism, capital markets, commerce, and profit. These are words that most people don’t think of when they hear the term “global warming,” and they especially don’t expect to hear them coming from me. After all, I’m an environmental lawyer running one of the country’s most respected and influential environmental groups, advocating for good environmental policy.

I wrote this book because, after 20 years of studying global warming and trying to craft solutions to stop it, I know that government policy alone is not the answer. Enacting a hard cap on carbon will play a key supporting role, but the starring role belongs to American commerce.

I played around for a few minutes with a heading that said something along the lines of “Scientists alert us to the Obvious… etc” for this story. It seems to me that I am dealing more and more with people who simply intend to live their lives with their heads buried in the sand.

That isn’t to say that [...]

“Personal choices, no matter how virtuous, cannot do enough. It will also take laws and money.”

The New Yorker has published an illuminating article on carbon emissions and carbon “cap and trade” systems, which shares the example of the successful reduction in sulfur emissions to illustrate how carbon emissions could be reduced. The passage of the Clean Air Act in 1990 mandated massive acid-rain reductions, and created a market for sulfur-dioxide emissions that forced companies to “pay to pollute”. Once a cost was associated with sulfur-dioxide emissions, companies could save money by installing scrubbers. Emissions were reduced from eighteen million tons to nine million, and acid rain evaporated as an environmental problem. Cap and trade is already happening, at the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), where carbon futures are traded like pork bellies.

“…CCX members buy and sell the right to pollute. Each makes a voluntary (but legally binding) commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide—and hydrofluorocarbons. Four hundred corporations now belong to the exchange, including a growing percentage of America’s largest manufacturers. The members agree to reduce their emissions by a certain amount every year, a system commonly known as cap and trade. A baseline target, or cap, is established, and companies whose emissions fall below that cap receive allowances, which they can sell (or save to use later). Companies whose emissions exceed the limit are essentially fined and forced to buy credits to compensate for their excess.” — Michael Specter, The New Yorker

This isn’t just a method for punishment and reward. Establishing a carbon market allows money to flow toward developing the new energy technologies that will help companies save money. And if Silicon Valley is ever going to become “Solar Valley”, as some have predicted, the money needs to flow. Obama, Clinton and McCain are all advocating a cap and trade system.